Breast Cancer ICYMI

Laparoscopic surgery can improve long-term overall survival (OS) compared with open surgery for patients with rectal cancer, according to findings from a large meta-analysis.

The estimated 5-year OS rate for patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery was 76.2%, vs. 72.7% for those who had open surgery.

“The survival benefit of laparoscopic surgery is encouraging and supports the routine use of laparoscopic surgery for adult patients with rectal cancer in the era of minimally invasive surgery,” wrote the authors, led by Leping Li, MD, of the department of gastrointestinal surgery, Shandong (China) Provincial Hospital.

The article was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Surgery is an essential component in treating rectal cancer, but the benefits of laparoscopic vs. open surgery are not clear. Over the past 15 years, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown comparable long-term outcomes for laparoscopic and open surgery. However, in most meta-analyses that assessed the evidence more broadly, researchers used an “inappropriate” method for the pooled analysis. Dr. Li and colleagues wanted to perform their own meta-analysis to more definitively understand whether the evidence on long-term outcomes supports or opposes the use of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

In the current study, the authors conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using time-to-event data and focused on the long-term survival outcomes after laparoscopic or open surgery for adult patients with rectal cancer.

Ten articles involving 12 RCTs and 3,709 participants were included. In these, 2,097 patients were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic surgery, and 1,612 were randomly assigned to undergo open surgery. The studies covered a global population, with participants from Europe, North America, and East Asia.

In a one-stage analysis, the authors found that disease-free survival was slightly better among patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery, but the results were statistically similar (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; P = .26).

However, when it came to OS, those who had undergone laparoscopic surgery fared significantly better (HR, 0.85; P = .02).

These results held up in the two-stage analysis for both disease-free survival (HR, 0.92; P = .25) and OS (HR, 0.85; P = .02). A sensitivity analyses conducted with large RCTs yielded similar pooled effect sizes for disease-free survival (HR, 0.91; P = .20) and OS (HR, 0.84; P = .03).

The authors highlighted several reasons why laparoscopic surgery may be associated with better survival. First, the faster recovery from the minimally invasive procedure could allow patients to begin adjuvant therapy earlier. In addition, the reduced stress responses and higher levels of immune function among patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery may contribute to a long-term survival advantage.

“These findings address concerns regarding the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery,” the authors wrote. However, “further studies are necessary to explore the specific mechanisms underlying the positive effect of laparoscopic surgery on OS.”

No outside funding source was noted. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Laparoscopic surgery can improve long-term overall survival (OS) compared with open surgery for patients with rectal cancer, according to findings from a large meta-analysis.

The estimated 5-year OS rate for patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery was 76.2%, vs. 72.7% for those who had open surgery.

“The survival benefit of laparoscopic surgery is encouraging and supports the routine use of laparoscopic surgery for adult patients with rectal cancer in the era of minimally invasive surgery,” wrote the authors, led by Leping Li, MD, of the department of gastrointestinal surgery, Shandong (China) Provincial Hospital.

The article was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Surgery is an essential component in treating rectal cancer, but the benefits of laparoscopic vs. open surgery are not clear. Over the past 15 years, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown comparable long-term outcomes for laparoscopic and open surgery. However, in most meta-analyses that assessed the evidence more broadly, researchers used an “inappropriate” method for the pooled analysis. Dr. Li and colleagues wanted to perform their own meta-analysis to more definitively understand whether the evidence on long-term outcomes supports or opposes the use of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

In the current study, the authors conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using time-to-event data and focused on the long-term survival outcomes after laparoscopic or open surgery for adult patients with rectal cancer.

Ten articles involving 12 RCTs and 3,709 participants were included. In these, 2,097 patients were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic surgery, and 1,612 were randomly assigned to undergo open surgery. The studies covered a global population, with participants from Europe, North America, and East Asia.

In a one-stage analysis, the authors found that disease-free survival was slightly better among patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery, but the results were statistically similar (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; P = .26).

However, when it came to OS, those who had undergone laparoscopic surgery fared significantly better (HR, 0.85; P = .02).

These results held up in the two-stage analysis for both disease-free survival (HR, 0.92; P = .25) and OS (HR, 0.85; P = .02). A sensitivity analyses conducted with large RCTs yielded similar pooled effect sizes for disease-free survival (HR, 0.91; P = .20) and OS (HR, 0.84; P = .03).

The authors highlighted several reasons why laparoscopic surgery may be associated with better survival. First, the faster recovery from the minimally invasive procedure could allow patients to begin adjuvant therapy earlier. In addition, the reduced stress responses and higher levels of immune function among patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery may contribute to a long-term survival advantage.

“These findings address concerns regarding the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery,” the authors wrote. However, “further studies are necessary to explore the specific mechanisms underlying the positive effect of laparoscopic surgery on OS.”

No outside funding source was noted. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Laparoscopic surgery can improve long-term overall survival (OS) compared with open surgery for patients with rectal cancer, according to findings from a large meta-analysis.

The estimated 5-year OS rate for patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery was 76.2%, vs. 72.7% for those who had open surgery.

“The survival benefit of laparoscopic surgery is encouraging and supports the routine use of laparoscopic surgery for adult patients with rectal cancer in the era of minimally invasive surgery,” wrote the authors, led by Leping Li, MD, of the department of gastrointestinal surgery, Shandong (China) Provincial Hospital.

The article was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Surgery is an essential component in treating rectal cancer, but the benefits of laparoscopic vs. open surgery are not clear. Over the past 15 years, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown comparable long-term outcomes for laparoscopic and open surgery. However, in most meta-analyses that assessed the evidence more broadly, researchers used an “inappropriate” method for the pooled analysis. Dr. Li and colleagues wanted to perform their own meta-analysis to more definitively understand whether the evidence on long-term outcomes supports or opposes the use of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

In the current study, the authors conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using time-to-event data and focused on the long-term survival outcomes after laparoscopic or open surgery for adult patients with rectal cancer.

Ten articles involving 12 RCTs and 3,709 participants were included. In these, 2,097 patients were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic surgery, and 1,612 were randomly assigned to undergo open surgery. The studies covered a global population, with participants from Europe, North America, and East Asia.

In a one-stage analysis, the authors found that disease-free survival was slightly better among patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery, but the results were statistically similar (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; P = .26).

However, when it came to OS, those who had undergone laparoscopic surgery fared significantly better (HR, 0.85; P = .02).

These results held up in the two-stage analysis for both disease-free survival (HR, 0.92; P = .25) and OS (HR, 0.85; P = .02). A sensitivity analyses conducted with large RCTs yielded similar pooled effect sizes for disease-free survival (HR, 0.91; P = .20) and OS (HR, 0.84; P = .03).

The authors highlighted several reasons why laparoscopic surgery may be associated with better survival. First, the faster recovery from the minimally invasive procedure could allow patients to begin adjuvant therapy earlier. In addition, the reduced stress responses and higher levels of immune function among patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery may contribute to a long-term survival advantage.

“These findings address concerns regarding the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery,” the authors wrote. However, “further studies are necessary to explore the specific mechanisms underlying the positive effect of laparoscopic surgery on OS.”

No outside funding source was noted. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Infertile men may be twice as likely to develop invasive breast cancer as those without fertility issues, according to new research funded by the charity Breast Cancer Now and published in Breast Cancer Research. The study is one of the largest ever into male breast cancer, enabling the team to show a highly statistically significant association.  

A link with infertility had been suspected, since parity markedly reduces the risk of female breast cancer; there are known genetic links in both sexes, and a high risk of both breast cancer and infertility among men with Klinefelter syndrome, suggesting some sex hormone-related involvement. However, the rarity of breast cancer in men – with an annual incidence of about 370 cases and 80 deaths per year in the United Kingdom – meant that past studies were necessarily small and yielded mixed results.

“Compared with previous studies, our study of male breast cancer is large,” said study coauthor Michael Jones, PhD, of the division of genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) in London. “It was carried out nationwide across England and Wales and was set in motion more than 15 years ago. Because of how rare male breast cancer is, it took us over 12 years to identify and interview the nearly 2,000 men with breast cancer who were part of this study.”

The latest research is part of the wider Breast Cancer Now Male Breast Cancer Study, launched by the charity in 2007. For the new study, the ICR team interviewed 1,998 males living in England and Wales who had been diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. All were aged under 80 but most 60 or older at diagnosis; 92% of their tumors were invasive, and almost all were estrogen receptor positive (98.5% of those with known status).

Their responses were compared with those of a control group of 1,597 men without breast cancer, matched by age at diagnosis and geographic region, recruited from male non-blood relatives of cases and from husbands of women participating in the Generations cohort study of breast cancer etiology.
 

Raised risk with history of male infertility

Overall, 112 cases (5.6%) and 80 controls (5.0%) reported that they had had infertility problems for which they or their partner had consulted a doctor or infertility clinic. This represented a raised odds ratio of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.77), which was statistically not significant. However, when analyzed by outcome of the infertility consultation, there was a significant and more than doubled risk of breast cancer among men who were diagnosed as the source of the couple’s infertility (OR = 2.03 [1.18-3.49]), whereas this was not the case among men whose partner was the source (OR = 0.86 [0.51-1.45]) or for whom no source was identified (OR = 1.26 [0.71-2.24]).

In addition, proportionately fewer cases (1,615, or 80.8%) compared with controls (1,423, or 89.1%) had fathered any children, also giving a statistically significantly raised risk of breast cancer for men with no biological children (OR = 1.50 [1.21-1.86], P < .001), “congruent with infertility as a risk factor,” the authors said. The risk was statistically significant for invasive tumors but not for the much smaller number of in situ tumors.

Analysis by number of children showed a decreasing risk with increasing numbers of children, with a highly significant (P < .001) inverse trend where zero was included as a value, but a borderline significant trend (P = .04) if it was not. The team noted that number of children beyond one is difficult to interpret as an indicator of male fertility, since it may more reflect social and cultural factors than fertility per se.

Baseline demographic factors were adjusted for in the risk analyses, and results were not materially changed by sensitivity analyses adjusting additionally for alcohol consumption, smoking, liver disease, and family history of breast cancer. The association also largely remained after exclusion of patients with other preexisting potential confounders including severe obesity and testicular abnormalities, and was consistent irrespective of HER-2 status (there were too few ER-negative tumors to analyze results by ER status).
 

Potential underlying factors

“The causes of breast cancer in men are largely unknown, partly because it is rare and partly because previous studies have been small,” Dr. Jones said. “The evidence presented in our study suggests that the association of infertility and breast cancer should be confirmed with further research, and future investigations are needed into the potential underlying factors, such as hormone imbalances.”

Commenting on the study, Fiona Osgun, senior health information manager at Cancer Research UK, told this news organization: “Overall, there isn’t strong evidence that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer. This study helps to shed light onto a cancer type that is sadly still not very well understood, but much more research is needed to say that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer.”

She added that although male breast cancer is a rare condition, it’s still important for men to be aware of what looks and feels normal for them, and to be encouraged to seek medical advice if something is not quite right.

A spokesperson for Breast Cancer UK told this news organization: “[We] believe it’s important to understand what leads to breast cancer in men as well as women and that high quality, long-term studies such as this will help with this understanding.

The findings are consistent with an earlier study that found that U.S. men who have never fathered children are at higher risk of breast cancer. This new long-term U.K. study provides strong evidence, which supports this finding.  

“As the authors note, the biological reasons are unclear, but may be associated with altered hormone levels. The ratio of circulating levels of estrogen and androgens (e.g. testosterone) is crucial in healthy functioning of breast tissue. Disruption to this, for example as a result of damage to testes, may affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.

“It is also possible that external factors, such as exposure to certain endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which affect sex hormones, may also affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.

“More studies into breast cancer in men are needed to help us understand better all the risk factors associated with this disease including both hormonal factors and chemical exposures.”

Simon Vincent, PhD, director of research, support, and influencing at Breast Cancer Now, said: “Research has discovered different treatments directed at some features of breast cancer in women; however, breast cancer is not as well understood for men. This is why Breast Cancer Now funds the Male Breast Cancer Study, which looks at what might cause the disease in men. Discovering a link between infertility and male breast cancer is a step towards us understanding male breast cancer and how we could find more ways to diagnose and treat men – and possibly women – with this devastating disease.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Infertile men may be twice as likely to develop invasive breast cancer as those without fertility issues, according to new research funded by the charity Breast Cancer Now and published in Breast Cancer Research. The study is one of the largest ever into male breast cancer, enabling the team to show a highly statistically significant association.  

A link with infertility had been suspected, since parity markedly reduces the risk of female breast cancer; there are known genetic links in both sexes, and a high risk of both breast cancer and infertility among men with Klinefelter syndrome, suggesting some sex hormone-related involvement. However, the rarity of breast cancer in men – with an annual incidence of about 370 cases and 80 deaths per year in the United Kingdom – meant that past studies were necessarily small and yielded mixed results.

“Compared with previous studies, our study of male breast cancer is large,” said study coauthor Michael Jones, PhD, of the division of genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) in London. “It was carried out nationwide across England and Wales and was set in motion more than 15 years ago. Because of how rare male breast cancer is, it took us over 12 years to identify and interview the nearly 2,000 men with breast cancer who were part of this study.”

The latest research is part of the wider Breast Cancer Now Male Breast Cancer Study, launched by the charity in 2007. For the new study, the ICR team interviewed 1,998 males living in England and Wales who had been diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. All were aged under 80 but most 60 or older at diagnosis; 92% of their tumors were invasive, and almost all were estrogen receptor positive (98.5% of those with known status).

Their responses were compared with those of a control group of 1,597 men without breast cancer, matched by age at diagnosis and geographic region, recruited from male non-blood relatives of cases and from husbands of women participating in the Generations cohort study of breast cancer etiology.
 

Raised risk with history of male infertility

Overall, 112 cases (5.6%) and 80 controls (5.0%) reported that they had had infertility problems for which they or their partner had consulted a doctor or infertility clinic. This represented a raised odds ratio of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.77), which was statistically not significant. However, when analyzed by outcome of the infertility consultation, there was a significant and more than doubled risk of breast cancer among men who were diagnosed as the source of the couple’s infertility (OR = 2.03 [1.18-3.49]), whereas this was not the case among men whose partner was the source (OR = 0.86 [0.51-1.45]) or for whom no source was identified (OR = 1.26 [0.71-2.24]).

In addition, proportionately fewer cases (1,615, or 80.8%) compared with controls (1,423, or 89.1%) had fathered any children, also giving a statistically significantly raised risk of breast cancer for men with no biological children (OR = 1.50 [1.21-1.86], P < .001), “congruent with infertility as a risk factor,” the authors said. The risk was statistically significant for invasive tumors but not for the much smaller number of in situ tumors.

Analysis by number of children showed a decreasing risk with increasing numbers of children, with a highly significant (P < .001) inverse trend where zero was included as a value, but a borderline significant trend (P = .04) if it was not. The team noted that number of children beyond one is difficult to interpret as an indicator of male fertility, since it may more reflect social and cultural factors than fertility per se.

Baseline demographic factors were adjusted for in the risk analyses, and results were not materially changed by sensitivity analyses adjusting additionally for alcohol consumption, smoking, liver disease, and family history of breast cancer. The association also largely remained after exclusion of patients with other preexisting potential confounders including severe obesity and testicular abnormalities, and was consistent irrespective of HER-2 status (there were too few ER-negative tumors to analyze results by ER status).
 

Potential underlying factors

“The causes of breast cancer in men are largely unknown, partly because it is rare and partly because previous studies have been small,” Dr. Jones said. “The evidence presented in our study suggests that the association of infertility and breast cancer should be confirmed with further research, and future investigations are needed into the potential underlying factors, such as hormone imbalances.”

Commenting on the study, Fiona Osgun, senior health information manager at Cancer Research UK, told this news organization: “Overall, there isn’t strong evidence that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer. This study helps to shed light onto a cancer type that is sadly still not very well understood, but much more research is needed to say that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer.”

She added that although male breast cancer is a rare condition, it’s still important for men to be aware of what looks and feels normal for them, and to be encouraged to seek medical advice if something is not quite right.

A spokesperson for Breast Cancer UK told this news organization: “[We] believe it’s important to understand what leads to breast cancer in men as well as women and that high quality, long-term studies such as this will help with this understanding.

The findings are consistent with an earlier study that found that U.S. men who have never fathered children are at higher risk of breast cancer. This new long-term U.K. study provides strong evidence, which supports this finding.  

“As the authors note, the biological reasons are unclear, but may be associated with altered hormone levels. The ratio of circulating levels of estrogen and androgens (e.g. testosterone) is crucial in healthy functioning of breast tissue. Disruption to this, for example as a result of damage to testes, may affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.

“It is also possible that external factors, such as exposure to certain endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which affect sex hormones, may also affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.

“More studies into breast cancer in men are needed to help us understand better all the risk factors associated with this disease including both hormonal factors and chemical exposures.”

Simon Vincent, PhD, director of research, support, and influencing at Breast Cancer Now, said: “Research has discovered different treatments directed at some features of breast cancer in women; however, breast cancer is not as well understood for men. This is why Breast Cancer Now funds the Male Breast Cancer Study, which looks at what might cause the disease in men. Discovering a link between infertility and male breast cancer is a step towards us understanding male breast cancer and how we could find more ways to diagnose and treat men – and possibly women – with this devastating disease.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Infertile men may be twice as likely to develop invasive breast cancer as those without fertility issues, according to new research funded by the charity Breast Cancer Now and published in Breast Cancer Research. The study is one of the largest ever into male breast cancer, enabling the team to show a highly statistically significant association.  

A link with infertility had been suspected, since parity markedly reduces the risk of female breast cancer; there are known genetic links in both sexes, and a high risk of both breast cancer and infertility among men with Klinefelter syndrome, suggesting some sex hormone-related involvement. However, the rarity of breast cancer in men – with an annual incidence of about 370 cases and 80 deaths per year in the United Kingdom – meant that past studies were necessarily small and yielded mixed results.

“Compared with previous studies, our study of male breast cancer is large,” said study coauthor Michael Jones, PhD, of the division of genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) in London. “It was carried out nationwide across England and Wales and was set in motion more than 15 years ago. Because of how rare male breast cancer is, it took us over 12 years to identify and interview the nearly 2,000 men with breast cancer who were part of this study.”

The latest research is part of the wider Breast Cancer Now Male Breast Cancer Study, launched by the charity in 2007. For the new study, the ICR team interviewed 1,998 males living in England and Wales who had been diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. All were aged under 80 but most 60 or older at diagnosis; 92% of their tumors were invasive, and almost all were estrogen receptor positive (98.5% of those with known status).

Their responses were compared with those of a control group of 1,597 men without breast cancer, matched by age at diagnosis and geographic region, recruited from male non-blood relatives of cases and from husbands of women participating in the Generations cohort study of breast cancer etiology.
 

Raised risk with history of male infertility

Overall, 112 cases (5.6%) and 80 controls (5.0%) reported that they had had infertility problems for which they or their partner had consulted a doctor or infertility clinic. This represented a raised odds ratio of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.77), which was statistically not significant. However, when analyzed by outcome of the infertility consultation, there was a significant and more than doubled risk of breast cancer among men who were diagnosed as the source of the couple’s infertility (OR = 2.03 [1.18-3.49]), whereas this was not the case among men whose partner was the source (OR = 0.86 [0.51-1.45]) or for whom no source was identified (OR = 1.26 [0.71-2.24]).

In addition, proportionately fewer cases (1,615, or 80.8%) compared with controls (1,423, or 89.1%) had fathered any children, also giving a statistically significantly raised risk of breast cancer for men with no biological children (OR = 1.50 [1.21-1.86], P < .001), “congruent with infertility as a risk factor,” the authors said. The risk was statistically significant for invasive tumors but not for the much smaller number of in situ tumors.

Analysis by number of children showed a decreasing risk with increasing numbers of children, with a highly significant (P < .001) inverse trend where zero was included as a value, but a borderline significant trend (P = .04) if it was not. The team noted that number of children beyond one is difficult to interpret as an indicator of male fertility, since it may more reflect social and cultural factors than fertility per se.

Baseline demographic factors were adjusted for in the risk analyses, and results were not materially changed by sensitivity analyses adjusting additionally for alcohol consumption, smoking, liver disease, and family history of breast cancer. The association also largely remained after exclusion of patients with other preexisting potential confounders including severe obesity and testicular abnormalities, and was consistent irrespective of HER-2 status (there were too few ER-negative tumors to analyze results by ER status).
 

Potential underlying factors

“The causes of breast cancer in men are largely unknown, partly because it is rare and partly because previous studies have been small,” Dr. Jones said. “The evidence presented in our study suggests that the association of infertility and breast cancer should be confirmed with further research, and future investigations are needed into the potential underlying factors, such as hormone imbalances.”

Commenting on the study, Fiona Osgun, senior health information manager at Cancer Research UK, told this news organization: “Overall, there isn’t strong evidence that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer. This study helps to shed light onto a cancer type that is sadly still not very well understood, but much more research is needed to say that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer.”

She added that although male breast cancer is a rare condition, it’s still important for men to be aware of what looks and feels normal for them, and to be encouraged to seek medical advice if something is not quite right.

A spokesperson for Breast Cancer UK told this news organization: “[We] believe it’s important to understand what leads to breast cancer in men as well as women and that high quality, long-term studies such as this will help with this understanding.

The findings are consistent with an earlier study that found that U.S. men who have never fathered children are at higher risk of breast cancer. This new long-term U.K. study provides strong evidence, which supports this finding.  

“As the authors note, the biological reasons are unclear, but may be associated with altered hormone levels. The ratio of circulating levels of estrogen and androgens (e.g. testosterone) is crucial in healthy functioning of breast tissue. Disruption to this, for example as a result of damage to testes, may affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.

“It is also possible that external factors, such as exposure to certain endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which affect sex hormones, may also affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.

“More studies into breast cancer in men are needed to help us understand better all the risk factors associated with this disease including both hormonal factors and chemical exposures.”

Simon Vincent, PhD, director of research, support, and influencing at Breast Cancer Now, said: “Research has discovered different treatments directed at some features of breast cancer in women; however, breast cancer is not as well understood for men. This is why Breast Cancer Now funds the Male Breast Cancer Study, which looks at what might cause the disease in men. Discovering a link between infertility and male breast cancer is a step towards us understanding male breast cancer and how we could find more ways to diagnose and treat men – and possibly women – with this devastating disease.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

More than 70% of cancer patients do not know that they are at greater risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than the general population. It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.

This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.

A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.

“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.

It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.

In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.

“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.

“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
 

Poor understanding

One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.

Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.

When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.

Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.

The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
 

The Italian situation

The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.

The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).

The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.

Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.

In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
 

Which way forward?

“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.

The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.

So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.

“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.

Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.

The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.

Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.

“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

More than 70% of cancer patients do not know that they are at greater risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than the general population. It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.

This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.

A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.

“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.

It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.

In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.

“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.

“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
 

Poor understanding

One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.

Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.

When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.

Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.

The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
 

The Italian situation

The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.

The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).

The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.

Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.

In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
 

Which way forward?

“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.

The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.

So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.

“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.

Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.

The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.

Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.

“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

More than 70% of cancer patients do not know that they are at greater risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than the general population. It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.

This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.

A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.

“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.

It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.

In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.

“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.

“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
 

Poor understanding

One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.

Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.

When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.

Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.

The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
 

The Italian situation

The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.

The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).

The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.

Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.

In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
 

Which way forward?

“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.

The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.

So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.

“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.

Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.

The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.

Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.

“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

Key clinical point: Patients with left-sided breast cancer (BC) who received radiation doses to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) experienced an elevated risk for adverse cardiac outcomes.

Major finding: Mean dose to LAD was associated with an increased risk for any cardiac event (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09; P = .006) and major cardiac events (HR 1.08; P = .022). Receiver operating characteristics analysis identified 2.8 Gy (area under the curve 0.69) as the mean LAD dose threshold, above which the risk for any cardiac event was higher (P = .001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study of 375 consecutively treated female patients with nonmetastatic, left-sided BC who received breast-conserving surgery/mastectomy and adjuvant radiation therapy.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Zureick AH et al. Dose to the left anterior descending artery correlates with cardiac events following irradiation for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022 (Apr 24). Doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.04.019

Key clinical point: Patients with left-sided breast cancer (BC) who received radiation doses to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) experienced an elevated risk for adverse cardiac outcomes.

Major finding: Mean dose to LAD was associated with an increased risk for any cardiac event (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09; P = .006) and major cardiac events (HR 1.08; P = .022). Receiver operating characteristics analysis identified 2.8 Gy (area under the curve 0.69) as the mean LAD dose threshold, above which the risk for any cardiac event was higher (P = .001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study of 375 consecutively treated female patients with nonmetastatic, left-sided BC who received breast-conserving surgery/mastectomy and adjuvant radiation therapy.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Zureick AH et al. Dose to the left anterior descending artery correlates with cardiac events following irradiation for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022 (Apr 24). Doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.04.019

Key clinical point: Patients with left-sided breast cancer (BC) who received radiation doses to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) experienced an elevated risk for adverse cardiac outcomes.

Major finding: Mean dose to LAD was associated with an increased risk for any cardiac event (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09; P = .006) and major cardiac events (HR 1.08; P = .022). Receiver operating characteristics analysis identified 2.8 Gy (area under the curve 0.69) as the mean LAD dose threshold, above which the risk for any cardiac event was higher (P = .001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study of 375 consecutively treated female patients with nonmetastatic, left-sided BC who received breast-conserving surgery/mastectomy and adjuvant radiation therapy.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Zureick AH et al. Dose to the left anterior descending artery correlates with cardiac events following irradiation for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022 (Apr 24). Doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.04.019

Key clinical point: Young age at diagnosis of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer (BC) was not associated with any detrimental prognostic value and had no effect on the efficacy of adjuvant dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy.

Major finding: Young age had no effect on invasive disease-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.07; 95% CI 0.84-1.35), regardless of hormone receptor status (positive: aHR 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.44 or negative: aHR 0.99; 95% CI 0.62-1.51) and anti-HER2 treatment administered (chemotherapy+trastuzumab+pertuzumab: aHR 1.20; 95% CI 0.83-1.68 or chemotherapy+trastuzumab+placebo: aHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.71-1.35).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 APHINITY trial including 768 patients aged ≤40 years with HER2+ early BC who were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy+trastuzumab+placebo or chemotherapy+trastuzumab+pertuzumab.

Disclosures: The APHINITY trial was supported by F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech. Some authors declared receiving research funding, honoraria, grants, or nonfinancial support or serving as advisors, speakers, or consultants for several sources, including Roche/Genentech.

Source: Lambertini M et al. Impact of age on clinical outcomes and efficacy of adjuvant dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022 (May 5). Doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac096 

Key clinical point: Young age at diagnosis of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer (BC) was not associated with any detrimental prognostic value and had no effect on the efficacy of adjuvant dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy.

Major finding: Young age had no effect on invasive disease-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.07; 95% CI 0.84-1.35), regardless of hormone receptor status (positive: aHR 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.44 or negative: aHR 0.99; 95% CI 0.62-1.51) and anti-HER2 treatment administered (chemotherapy+trastuzumab+pertuzumab: aHR 1.20; 95% CI 0.83-1.68 or chemotherapy+trastuzumab+placebo: aHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.71-1.35).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 APHINITY trial including 768 patients aged ≤40 years with HER2+ early BC who were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy+trastuzumab+placebo or chemotherapy+trastuzumab+pertuzumab.

Disclosures: The APHINITY trial was supported by F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech. Some authors declared receiving research funding, honoraria, grants, or nonfinancial support or serving as advisors, speakers, or consultants for several sources, including Roche/Genentech.

Source: Lambertini M et al. Impact of age on clinical outcomes and efficacy of adjuvant dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022 (May 5). Doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac096 

Key clinical point: Young age at diagnosis of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer (BC) was not associated with any detrimental prognostic value and had no effect on the efficacy of adjuvant dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy.

Major finding: Young age had no effect on invasive disease-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.07; 95% CI 0.84-1.35), regardless of hormone receptor status (positive: aHR 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.44 or negative: aHR 0.99; 95% CI 0.62-1.51) and anti-HER2 treatment administered (chemotherapy+trastuzumab+pertuzumab: aHR 1.20; 95% CI 0.83-1.68 or chemotherapy+trastuzumab+placebo: aHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.71-1.35).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 APHINITY trial including 768 patients aged ≤40 years with HER2+ early BC who were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy+trastuzumab+placebo or chemotherapy+trastuzumab+pertuzumab.

Disclosures: The APHINITY trial was supported by F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech. Some authors declared receiving research funding, honoraria, grants, or nonfinancial support or serving as advisors, speakers, or consultants for several sources, including Roche/Genentech.

Source: Lambertini M et al. Impact of age on clinical outcomes and efficacy of adjuvant dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022 (May 5). Doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac096 

Key clinical point: Age, tumor subtype, surgery, and brain metastasis are independent risk factors for survival in male patients with breast cancer (BC) and bone metastases and should be considered when devising a treatment strategy.

Major finding: Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were significantly lower in patients aged >60 years (hazard ratio [HR] 1.671; P = .014 and HR 1.806; P = .009, respectively), with triple-negative BC (HR 3.029; P = .003 and HR 3.025; P = .004, respectively), and without surgery (HR 1.764; P = .012 and HR 1.734; P = .023, respectively), and with brain metastasis worsening OS (HR 2.045; P = .028) but not CSS (P = .056).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 207 male patients with BC and bone metastases.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Zhou X et al. Survival analysis in male breast cancer with bone metastasis based on the SEER database. Front Oncol. 2022;12:659812 (Apr 13). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.659812 

Key clinical point: Age, tumor subtype, surgery, and brain metastasis are independent risk factors for survival in male patients with breast cancer (BC) and bone metastases and should be considered when devising a treatment strategy.

Major finding: Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were significantly lower in patients aged >60 years (hazard ratio [HR] 1.671; P = .014 and HR 1.806; P = .009, respectively), with triple-negative BC (HR 3.029; P = .003 and HR 3.025; P = .004, respectively), and without surgery (HR 1.764; P = .012 and HR 1.734; P = .023, respectively), and with brain metastasis worsening OS (HR 2.045; P = .028) but not CSS (P = .056).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 207 male patients with BC and bone metastases.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Zhou X et al. Survival analysis in male breast cancer with bone metastasis based on the SEER database. Front Oncol. 2022;12:659812 (Apr 13). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.659812 

Key clinical point: Age, tumor subtype, surgery, and brain metastasis are independent risk factors for survival in male patients with breast cancer (BC) and bone metastases and should be considered when devising a treatment strategy.

Major finding: Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were significantly lower in patients aged >60 years (hazard ratio [HR] 1.671; P = .014 and HR 1.806; P = .009, respectively), with triple-negative BC (HR 3.029; P = .003 and HR 3.025; P = .004, respectively), and without surgery (HR 1.764; P = .012 and HR 1.734; P = .023, respectively), and with brain metastasis worsening OS (HR 2.045; P = .028) but not CSS (P = .056).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 207 male patients with BC and bone metastases.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Zhou X et al. Survival analysis in male breast cancer with bone metastasis based on the SEER database. Front Oncol. 2022;12:659812 (Apr 13). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.659812 

Key clinical point: A breast cancer (BC) diagnosis within 5 years of childbirth (postpartum BC [PPBC]) was associated with worse prognosis than no childbirth prior to diagnosis (nulliparous BC), with the association being strongest in young women diagnosed at the age of <35 years and in those with stage I disease.

Major finding: Women diagnosed with nulliparous BC vs. PPBC at age of <45 years had better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.42-0.87), with the difference being more pronounced in women with stage I tumors (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.11-0.79) and in women diagnosed at the age of ≤35 years (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.23-0.84).

Study details: The study evaluated a pooled dataset of 2519 women diagnosed with BC at the age of ≥18 years.

Disclosures: This study was funded by grants from the University of Colorado Cancer Center, National Institutes of Health, and other sources. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Shagisultanova E et al. Overall survival is the lowest among young women with postpartum breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2022;168:119-127 (May 4). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.03.014

Key clinical point: A breast cancer (BC) diagnosis within 5 years of childbirth (postpartum BC [PPBC]) was associated with worse prognosis than no childbirth prior to diagnosis (nulliparous BC), with the association being strongest in young women diagnosed at the age of <35 years and in those with stage I disease.

Major finding: Women diagnosed with nulliparous BC vs. PPBC at age of <45 years had better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.42-0.87), with the difference being more pronounced in women with stage I tumors (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.11-0.79) and in women diagnosed at the age of ≤35 years (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.23-0.84).

Study details: The study evaluated a pooled dataset of 2519 women diagnosed with BC at the age of ≥18 years.

Disclosures: This study was funded by grants from the University of Colorado Cancer Center, National Institutes of Health, and other sources. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Shagisultanova E et al. Overall survival is the lowest among young women with postpartum breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2022;168:119-127 (May 4). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.03.014

Key clinical point: A breast cancer (BC) diagnosis within 5 years of childbirth (postpartum BC [PPBC]) was associated with worse prognosis than no childbirth prior to diagnosis (nulliparous BC), with the association being strongest in young women diagnosed at the age of <35 years and in those with stage I disease.

Major finding: Women diagnosed with nulliparous BC vs. PPBC at age of <45 years had better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.42-0.87), with the difference being more pronounced in women with stage I tumors (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.11-0.79) and in women diagnosed at the age of ≤35 years (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.23-0.84).

Study details: The study evaluated a pooled dataset of 2519 women diagnosed with BC at the age of ≥18 years.

Disclosures: This study was funded by grants from the University of Colorado Cancer Center, National Institutes of Health, and other sources. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Shagisultanova E et al. Overall survival is the lowest among young women with postpartum breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2022;168:119-127 (May 4). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.03.014

Key clinical point: The overall incidence of synchronous bilateral breast cancer (BBC) and metachronous BBC (MBBC) in patients with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) was 2%, with the risk for MBBC being even lower in women with hormone receptor-positive BC and those receiving endocrine therapy (ET).

Major finding: The estimated 5-year risk of developing MBBC was 6.4% (95% CI 1.9%-10.7%) among women with a remaining contralateral breast at risk, with the risk being lower among those with estrogen (hazard ratio [HR] 0.13; P = .015) or progesterone (HR 0.24; P = .047) receptor-positive BC and those who received ET (HR 0.17; P = .005).

Study details: This study included 1651 women with a history of LCIS, of which 249 women developed unilateral or bilateral BC during a median follow-up of 7 years.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by the US National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center. TA King declared receiving speakers' honoraria and serving on advisory boards for several sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mallory MA et al. Synchronous and metachronous bilateral breast cancer among women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 (Apr 29). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06532-4 

Key clinical point: The overall incidence of synchronous bilateral breast cancer (BBC) and metachronous BBC (MBBC) in patients with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) was 2%, with the risk for MBBC being even lower in women with hormone receptor-positive BC and those receiving endocrine therapy (ET).

Major finding: The estimated 5-year risk of developing MBBC was 6.4% (95% CI 1.9%-10.7%) among women with a remaining contralateral breast at risk, with the risk being lower among those with estrogen (hazard ratio [HR] 0.13; P = .015) or progesterone (HR 0.24; P = .047) receptor-positive BC and those who received ET (HR 0.17; P = .005).

Study details: This study included 1651 women with a history of LCIS, of which 249 women developed unilateral or bilateral BC during a median follow-up of 7 years.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by the US National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center. TA King declared receiving speakers' honoraria and serving on advisory boards for several sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mallory MA et al. Synchronous and metachronous bilateral breast cancer among women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 (Apr 29). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06532-4 

Key clinical point: The overall incidence of synchronous bilateral breast cancer (BBC) and metachronous BBC (MBBC) in patients with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) was 2%, with the risk for MBBC being even lower in women with hormone receptor-positive BC and those receiving endocrine therapy (ET).

Major finding: The estimated 5-year risk of developing MBBC was 6.4% (95% CI 1.9%-10.7%) among women with a remaining contralateral breast at risk, with the risk being lower among those with estrogen (hazard ratio [HR] 0.13; P = .015) or progesterone (HR 0.24; P = .047) receptor-positive BC and those who received ET (HR 0.17; P = .005).

Study details: This study included 1651 women with a history of LCIS, of which 249 women developed unilateral or bilateral BC during a median follow-up of 7 years.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by the US National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center. TA King declared receiving speakers' honoraria and serving on advisory boards for several sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mallory MA et al. Synchronous and metachronous bilateral breast cancer among women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 (Apr 29). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06532-4 

Key clinical point: The combination of ibandronate and endocrine therapy (ET) failed to improve disease-free survival (DFS) compared with ET alone in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) early breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: During a median follow-up of 8.5 years, DFS was not significantly different between the ibandronate+ET and ET treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97; log-rank P = .811). Overall, the incidence of adverse events, particularly osteonecrosis (P = .002) and dyspepsia (P < .001), was higher in the ibandronate+ET vs. ET treatment arm.

Study details: This phase 3, TEAM-IIB trial included 1116 postmenopausal women with invasive stage I-III ER+ BC who were randomly assigned to receive ET for 5 years with or without 50 mg adjuvant oral ibandronate once daily for 3 years.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from Roche Nederland B.V. and Pfizer Nederland B.V. Some authors declared serving as consultants, advisors, or receiving research funding, honoraria, travel support, or accommodation expenses from several sources, including Roche and Pfizer.

Source: Vliek SB, Noordhoek I, et al. Daily oral ibandronate with adjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer (BOOG 2006-04): Randomized phase III TEAM-IIB trial. J Clin Oncol. 2022 Apr 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00311.

Key clinical point: The combination of ibandronate and endocrine therapy (ET) failed to improve disease-free survival (DFS) compared with ET alone in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) early breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: During a median follow-up of 8.5 years, DFS was not significantly different between the ibandronate+ET and ET treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97; log-rank P = .811). Overall, the incidence of adverse events, particularly osteonecrosis (P = .002) and dyspepsia (P < .001), was higher in the ibandronate+ET vs. ET treatment arm.

Study details: This phase 3, TEAM-IIB trial included 1116 postmenopausal women with invasive stage I-III ER+ BC who were randomly assigned to receive ET for 5 years with or without 50 mg adjuvant oral ibandronate once daily for 3 years.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from Roche Nederland B.V. and Pfizer Nederland B.V. Some authors declared serving as consultants, advisors, or receiving research funding, honoraria, travel support, or accommodation expenses from several sources, including Roche and Pfizer.

Source: Vliek SB, Noordhoek I, et al. Daily oral ibandronate with adjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer (BOOG 2006-04): Randomized phase III TEAM-IIB trial. J Clin Oncol. 2022 Apr 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00311.

Key clinical point: The combination of ibandronate and endocrine therapy (ET) failed to improve disease-free survival (DFS) compared with ET alone in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) early breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: During a median follow-up of 8.5 years, DFS was not significantly different between the ibandronate+ET and ET treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97; log-rank P = .811). Overall, the incidence of adverse events, particularly osteonecrosis (P = .002) and dyspepsia (P < .001), was higher in the ibandronate+ET vs. ET treatment arm.

Study details: This phase 3, TEAM-IIB trial included 1116 postmenopausal women with invasive stage I-III ER+ BC who were randomly assigned to receive ET for 5 years with or without 50 mg adjuvant oral ibandronate once daily for 3 years.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from Roche Nederland B.V. and Pfizer Nederland B.V. Some authors declared serving as consultants, advisors, or receiving research funding, honoraria, travel support, or accommodation expenses from several sources, including Roche and Pfizer.

Source: Vliek SB, Noordhoek I, et al. Daily oral ibandronate with adjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer (BOOG 2006-04): Randomized phase III TEAM-IIB trial. J Clin Oncol. 2022 Apr 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00311.

Key clinical point: Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) demonstrated no survival benefit over capecitabine in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−), metastatic breast cancer (BC) who progressed on prior aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy.

Major finding: The median overall survival was not significantly different between the palbociclib+ET and capecitabine groups in the overall population (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.00; P = .995) and the wild-type estrogen receptor-1 population (aHR 1.06; P = .683). No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 PEARL study including 601 postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2− metastatic BC who progressed on prior AI therapy and were randomly assigned to receive capecitabine or palbociclib+ET with exemestane or fulvestrant.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Pfizer Inc. and AstraZeneca. Two authors declared being employees and having stock options in Pfizer, and the other authors reported ties with several sources, including Pfizer and AstraZeneca.

Source: Martin M et al. Overall survival with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the PEARL study. Eur J Cancer. 2022;168:12-24 (Apr 14). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.03.006

Key clinical point: Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) demonstrated no survival benefit over capecitabine in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−), metastatic breast cancer (BC) who progressed on prior aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy.

Major finding: The median overall survival was not significantly different between the palbociclib+ET and capecitabine groups in the overall population (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.00; P = .995) and the wild-type estrogen receptor-1 population (aHR 1.06; P = .683). No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 PEARL study including 601 postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2− metastatic BC who progressed on prior AI therapy and were randomly assigned to receive capecitabine or palbociclib+ET with exemestane or fulvestrant.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Pfizer Inc. and AstraZeneca. Two authors declared being employees and having stock options in Pfizer, and the other authors reported ties with several sources, including Pfizer and AstraZeneca.

Source: Martin M et al. Overall survival with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the PEARL study. Eur J Cancer. 2022;168:12-24 (Apr 14). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.03.006

Key clinical point: Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) demonstrated no survival benefit over capecitabine in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−), metastatic breast cancer (BC) who progressed on prior aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy.

Major finding: The median overall survival was not significantly different between the palbociclib+ET and capecitabine groups in the overall population (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.00; P = .995) and the wild-type estrogen receptor-1 population (aHR 1.06; P = .683). No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 PEARL study including 601 postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2− metastatic BC who progressed on prior AI therapy and were randomly assigned to receive capecitabine or palbociclib+ET with exemestane or fulvestrant.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Pfizer Inc. and AstraZeneca. Two authors declared being employees and having stock options in Pfizer, and the other authors reported ties with several sources, including Pfizer and AstraZeneca.

Source: Martin M et al. Overall survival with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the PEARL study. Eur J Cancer. 2022;168:12-24 (Apr 14). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.03.006